RE: Does anyone need a separate set oftagsfor"jurisdictional"vs"postallocations"?wasRE:[Geopriv]draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery-01.txt

From: Dawson, Martin ^lt;>
Date: Wed Aug 08 2007 - 18:43:28 EDT

I don't know about this being the basis for "the entire i2 infrastructure" which was primarily around how to deliver Internet originating calls into the existing emergency network infrastructure... that covers a lot more territory than the format of civic address provided by the LIS. In principle (at least) it was always possible for the LIS to have both an MSAG form of location and common civic form. That would have just required broadband (LIS) providers to validate the MSAG form directly and would have obviated the need for the real time translation at call processing time. I also don't think that madness has to be the ultimate destination as far as distinguishing between the two. If you know when to stop then you just have "jurisdictional" and "common civic" as the alternative types... I did ask the question about why MSAG can't be put in a PIDF-LO earlier on Brian. You didn't answer but I'm still interested. Cheers, Martin -----Original Message----- From: Brian Rosen [] Sent: Thursday, 9 August 2007 4:36 AM To: 'Marc Linsner'; Cc: Subject: RE: Does anyone need a separate set oftagsfor"jurisdictional"vs"postallocations"?wasRE:[Geopriv]draft-ietf-g eopriv-http-location-delivery-01.txt Right. The basis for the entire i2 infrastructure, which really is the same basis for the LoST infrastructure was that there really is ONE authoritative address, which is what is in the database. As long as you can uniquely identify an address, you can map to any other form of address you like. The i2 solution, in particular, admits that the current addressing used by at least the U.S. emergency authorities sometimes differs from the actual jurisdictional address, but except for alias/AKA stuff, the postal authorities DO conform to the local address authority (noting, as I did, that there are some local postmasters who don't follow the rules the USPS puts out). I suspect that Canada Post does the same, but that's the question we want answered definitively. In the i2 specification, the MSAG version of the location is stored in a database keyed by the jurisdictional address, which is what the rest of the system uses. It may be simpler for you if MSAG always is the same as jurisdictional. Brian > -----Original Message----- > From: Marc Linsner [] > Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 2:21 PM > To:; > Cc: > Subject: RE: Does anyone need a separate set of > tagsfor"jurisdictional"vs"postal locations"?wasRE:[Geopriv]draft-ietf- > geopriv-http-location-delivery-01.txt > > Jerome, > > > > > I'm open to other solutions, but allowing only postal civic > > addresses, as it stands right now, would imply a lower > > quality of the E9-1-1 service. > > > > Do you not agree with the i2 solution? > > If you are able to cross reference the 'common-use' civil address to your > 'richer' SAG location during the validation process, then you will be able > to cross reference that same 'common-use' information during the call > routing and the responder dispatch processes. > > Agree? > > -Marc- _______________________________________________ Geopriv mailing list ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of this email is prohibited. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [mf2]

Geopriv mailing list
Received on Wed, 8 Aug 2007 17:43:28 -0500

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Aug 08 2007 - 18:45:30 EDT